• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gay marriage won't infringe on anyone's right to practice their religion.
I like the irrelevant rebuttal, independent. It's quite obvious that I was saying that Your Star's citation of the First Amendment as an argument against legislation motivated by religious views was a load of crap.
 
Last edited:
I like the irrelevant rebuttal, independent. It's quite obvious that I was saying that Your Star's citation of the First Amendment as an argument against legislation motivated by religious views was a load of crap.

I see what you are saying. No one will be hurt by gay marriage so why prevent it?
 
You can have a private religious ceremony but it would mean nothing. The state would not recognize it as legal and so no operating room visits etc.

It’s not the same.

I was just responding to the assertion that polygamy was illegal. Polygamy under the law is illegal (in the sense that you can’t be legally married and receive legal benefits for a marriage that includes more than two people), but religions are free to practice polygamy under their separate religious definitions of marriage. For example, a polygynous marriage condoned by Islamic law between a man and four women would not be illegal (and they would not be arrested) unless the man attempted to obtain marriage licenses that legally committed him to each individual woman at the same time.

The specifications for obtaining a marriage licence vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the licence is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's licence, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).
Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass, between the granting of the licence and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage licence (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage licence and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority. Some states also have a requirement that a licence be filed within a certain time after its issuance, typically 30 or 60 days, following which a new licence must be obtained.
- Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You cannot have a religious cerimony without the license. If you do it will not be legal, as I said before.

I agree, it wouldn’t be considered a legal marriage under the law without a marriage license. But I didn’t know that it was illegal to even have a private religious ceremony with no attempt to obtain legal recognition. An Islamic man can be arrested because he engages in a religious ceremony that allows polygyny under the religious law? It’s not like he’s trying to obtain multiple civil marriage licenses, which would be illegal. I’m honestly curious which law says that.

You have missed my point completely.

You are free to vote, protest etc to have any law changed you wish. Separation of church and state means no law shall be based on religious laws. This does not mean people cannot lobby or vote for laws that are similar. I mean murder is against biblical law, and it is also against the law in the US. So because they are similar, laws against murder are unconstitutional? Of course not.

So we are free to lobby etc for changes and work within the system for that change. If you don’t like it you can take it to court to see if it will withstand the challenge.

Ok, I see your point. I guess I just personally disagree that people should in good conscience vote based on their religion, but I understand why you think that and it just comes down to a difference in opinion on this point lol.
 
I have yet to see proof of this. Being gay is a sexual preference. It seems logical then that being gay is less like someone's race, and more like someone's taste in music, or food, or movies, etc...

Do people sit down and say "I am going to choose to like classical music" or "I have just decided that I am going to enjoy smoking Camel cigarettes more than I enjoy smoking Marlboros?" Maybe not, but they do make a choice to listen to classical music, and they do make a choice to try smoking cigarettes, and their preferences in that regard will be influenced in some way by the choices they make.

Why does it even matter? Suppose that I am right, and it is a lifestyle choice. Does that suddenly make it ok to discriminate against them? Would it be ok to discriminate against people who prefer to listen to Chopin rather than Garth Brooks? How is whether its a choice or not even relevant to your argument here?

It's actually not a preference at all. The definition of preference from my dictionary is "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others; ex. a preference for long walks and tennis over jogging." Gay people do not "prefer" the same-sex, as in they could be heterosexual but they "prefer" to be homosexual. That implies some kind of choice, which simply isn't there.

And it doesn't really matter whether someone's sexual orientation is caused by genes, pre- or post-natal environmental factors, hormone levels, parenting, or whatever. It's discrimination to treat people differently based on an arbitrary trait like race, sexual orientation, etc. that has no bearing on job performance, intelligence, child-raising abilities, social functioning, etc. There has been no scientific evidence that same-sex marriage or other legal commitments hurts society (in fact, the evidence points to the contrary) so there is no legitimate state interest in treating same-sex couples different from opposite-sex couples under the law.
 
Every time this thread dies out someone starts it all over again and we go through the exact same arguments.
 
Every time this thread dies out someone starts it all over again and we go through the exact same arguments.

Read any 6 threads on GM. They are pretty much identical.
 
Gay marriage is a big issue to me, and even I am tired of arguing it.
 
An Islamic man can be arrested because he engages in a religious ceremony that allows polygyny under the religious law? It’s not like he’s trying to obtain multiple civil marriage licenses, which would be illegal. I’m honestly curious which law says that.

First of all I wanted to thank you. I know you don’t see eye to eye with me on this issue. The fact that you took the time to not only understand what I was saying, you unlike most took the time to see it through my eyes. Even though we disagree, you did not throw insults veiled or open.

Thank you very much. You are a winner in my book.

Now that I am done with the sappy crap. :mrgreen:

Now your question about the law, no Federal law exists as far as I know. I did not know this until I went to get married in the state of Illinois. It is a state law and varies from state to state, but they are all pretty similar.

Have a good one.
 
Now your question about the law, no Federal law exists as far as I know. I did not know this until I went to get married in the state of Illinois. It is a state law and varies from state to state, but they are all pretty similar.

Have a good one.

Can you expand on this a little bit? I can't find any laws actually prohibiting ceremonies without a license. I know that there are some laws still on the books against cohabitation and even adultery, but I can't find anything against actually having a religious ceremony to declare your marriage without a license. Now, I know that it would not be legal to claim that you are legally married without a license (unless you meet the common law marriage requirements of the state you are in, if the state even recognizes common law marriages), but I don't see anyone truly being prosecuted for just going through a marriage ceremony without a license. I don't think it would hold up well in court without proof that the couple was actually trying to defraud the government or someone else with the unlicensed marriage.

Even those laws against cohabitation and adultery that are on the books are rarely prosecuted and are now even being brought into question as far as their legality due to the SCOTUS decision Lawrence vs. Texas.

Another example that also came to mind for me when I was reading through those posts on the difference between secular marriage and religious marriage was how the Catholic religion does not recognize divorce. While a Catholic couple may have their legal marriage dissolved through divorce, the fundamentalists Catholic church will still consider them married. My grandmother could not get married in the church to her second husband because of this, and my aunt and uncle couldn't get the church to perform a second wedding when they remarried. Some religions also won't perform weddings of couples that aren't both members of the church.
 
Can you expand on this a little bit? I can't find any laws actually prohibiting ceremonies without a license. I know that there are some laws still on the books against cohabitation and even adultery, but I can't find anything against actually having a religious ceremony to declare your marriage without a license. Now, I know that it would not be legal to claim that you are legally married without a license (unless you meet the common law marriage requirements of the state you are in, if the state even recognizes common law marriages), but I don't see anyone truly being prosecuted for just going through a marriage ceremony without a license. I don't think it would hold up well in court without proof that the couple was actually trying to defraud the government or someone else with the unlicensed marriage.

Even those laws against cohabitation and adultery that are on the books are rarely prosecuted and are now even being brought into question as far as their legality due to the SCOTUS decision Lawrence vs. Texas.

Another example that also came to mind for me when I was reading through those posts on the difference between secular marriage and religious marriage was how the Catholic religion does not recognize divorce. While a Catholic couple may have their legal marriage dissolved through divorce, the fundamentalists Catholic church will still consider them married. My grandmother could not get married in the church to her second husband because of this, and my aunt and uncle couldn't get the church to perform a second wedding when they remarried. Some religions also won't perform weddings of couples that aren't both members of the church.

Nothing really to expand on. As a duly appointed officer (insert pastor, priest etc here) certified to preform a marriage by said state, it cannot be done without legal sanction from the state. You cannot get married without a license, this is the law in every state.

This is most likely why most of them say "by the power invested in me by the (insert state)."
 
Last edited:
Nothing really to expand on. As a duly appointed officer (insert pastor, priest etc here) certified to preform a marriage by said state, it cannot be done without legal sanction from the state. You cannot get married without a license, this is the law in every state.

This is most likely why most of them say "by the power invested in me by the (insert state)."

You guys are clearly talking about different things. A duly appointed officer certified to perform a marriage by a state is certified to sign the legal document that gives them a bunch of legal privileges. If we are just talking about a religious ceremony that doesn't involve legal privileges, it obviously does not require a license. To demonstrate, I shall hold a Panachian wedding right here on this very forum.

By the power vested in me by my own divine nature, I now pronounce you Blackdog, and you roguenuke, man and wife.

See? We just had a Panachian religious ceremony. It was perfectly legal to do so, but unfortunately y'all don't get any legal benefits for being married according to the Panachian Church.
 
First of all I wanted to thank you. I know you don’t see eye to eye with me on this issue. The fact that you took the time to not only understand what I was saying, you unlike most took the time to see it through my eyes. Even though we disagree, you did not throw insults veiled or open.

Thank you very much. You are a winner in my book.

Now that I am done with the sappy crap. :mrgreen:

Now your question about the law, no Federal law exists as far as I know. I did not know this until I went to get married in the state of Illinois. It is a state law and varies from state to state, but they are all pretty similar.

Have a good one.

Thank you to you too! It's been great to be able to hold a mature and civilized debate about such a controversial issue. I definitely respect your views and you've obviously put a lot of time and thought into them. I'm glad to end the discussion on a good note, something which doesn't seem to happen very often when people disagree.

Cheers :mrgreen:
 
Nothing really to expand on. As a duly appointed officer (insert pastor, priest etc here) certified to preform a marriage by said state, it cannot be done without legal sanction from the state. You cannot get married without a license, this is the law in every state.

This is most likely why most of them say "by the power invested in me by the (insert state)."

But that's just the problem. A minister, priest, officiant, anyone for that matter can perform the marriage ceremony, with or without a marriage license. They won't get fined or thrown in jail for simply performing the ceremony, going through whatever religious rites the church and/or couple wish to involve in their wedding. The only thing that would get anyone in the party actually into legal trouble would be attempting to somehow claim, on official forms or for official benefits, that they are in a state-endorsed marriage or misrepresenting themself as actually presiding over a state endorsed, legal (civil) marriage.
 
You guys are clearly talking about different things. A duly appointed officer certified to perform a marriage by a state is certified to sign the legal document that gives them a bunch of legal privileges. If we are just talking about a religious ceremony that doesn't involve legal privileges, it obviously does not require a license. To demonstrate, I shall hold a Panachian wedding right here on this very forum.

By the power vested in me by my own divine nature, I now pronounce you Blackdog, and you roguenuke, man and wife.

See? We just had a Panachian religious ceremony. It was perfectly legal to do so, but unfortunately y'all don't get any legal benefits for being married according to the Panachian Church.

LOL!!

It's a good thing my husband's in Great Lakes right now. I doubt he'd appreciate me getting into an "internet" marriage while he's away.

You're right. But I was really actually wondering if there really was any laws in any states that said that a couple couldn't have a ceremony that they referred to as a wedding ceremony, without having a marriage license as well. I was surprised enough to find that they actually have laws against adultery that could be punished with as severe a punishment as life in prisonment (in Michigan, but I highly doubt it would fly nowadays) or that so many states actually have cohabitation laws (although none have been prosecuted in quite some time).
 
You guys are clearly talking about different things. A duly appointed officer certified to perform a marriage by a state is certified to sign the legal document that gives them a bunch of legal privileges. If we are just talking about a religious ceremony that doesn't involve legal privileges, it obviously does not require a license. To demonstrate, I shall hold a Panachian wedding right here on this very forum.

By the power vested in me by my own divine nature, I now pronounce you Blackdog, and you roguenuke, man and wife.

See? We just had a Panachian religious ceremony. It was perfectly legal to do so, but unfortunately y'all don't get any legal benefits for being married according to the Panachian Church.

And you are not authorized by the state to preform a legal ceremony, religious personnel are.

So if you do it, like you said it means nothing. Not being recognized by the states means more than just no benefits. It means you are not married according to everyone else and every other state.
 
But that's just the problem. A minister, priest, officiant, anyone for that matter can perform the marriage ceremony, with or without a marriage license.

No they will not. They are authorized by the state as officers appointed to do an official marriage ceremony. They are bound by the law.

They won't get fined or thrown in jail for simply performing the ceremony, going through whatever religious rites the church and/or couple wish to involve in their wedding.

Marriage Laws
•In the United States, all states require a marriage license. Requirements such as age, waiting period and blood testing vary from state to state, but if you do not obtain this license prior to your wedding, the marriage will not be legal.
- Can You Have a Wedding Without Obtaining a Marriage License? | eHow.com

The only thing that would get anyone in the party actually into legal trouble would be attempting to somehow claim, on official forms or for official benefits, that they are in a state-endorsed marriage or misrepresenting themself as actually presiding over a state endorsed, legal (civil) marriage.
 
And you are not authorized by the state to preform a legal ceremony, religious personnel are.

So if you do it, like you said it means nothing. Not being recognized by the states means more than just no benefits. It means you are not married according to everyone else and every other state.

Technically, it's not just religious people who are authorized by the state to perform ceremonies. Anyone can get ordained nowdays. It was common practice while I was in the Navy for some guy on a ship or especially a sub to have his buddy get ordained in the state that him and his fiancee planned to get married in, and have the buddy perform the ceremony and/or sign the license. It was generally a lot cheaper than paying a minister/someone else already ordained to do it. And the ordained buddy could then perform other weddings, for a little bit of money if he wanted.

And, actually, it depends. The couple's family/friends might consider the couple married without a license, especially if they went to the actual ceremony. This is especially true when it comes to homosexual couples, and moreso in states where they can't actually legally get married. If the family and friends are really accepting of the couple, then they most certainly would accept the couple as married. Now, I'm not saying that anyone would be under the delusion that the couple would actually be entitled to those benefits/privileges from the state or federal government that come from having an actual legal marriage. Most adults understand that a couple must have a license registered somewhere for a marriage to be considered legal. That wouldn't stop the couple from claiming to be husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife.
 
Technically, it's not just religious people who are authorized by the state to perform ceremonies. Anyone can get ordained nowdays. It was common practice while I was in the Navy for some guy on a ship or especially a sub to have his buddy get ordained in the state that him and his fiancee planned to get married in, and have the buddy perform the ceremony and/or sign the license. It was generally a lot cheaper than paying a minister/someone else already ordained to do it. And the ordained buddy could then perform other weddings, for a little bit of money if he wanted.

And, actually, it depends. The couple's family/friends might consider the couple married without a license, especially if they went to the actual ceremony. This is especially true when it comes to homosexual couples, and moreso in states where they can't actually legally get married. If the family and friends are really accepting of the couple, then they most certainly would accept the couple as married. Now, I'm not saying that anyone would be under the delusion that the couple would actually be entitled to those benefits/privileges from the state or federal government that come from having an actual legal marriage. Most adults understand that a couple must have a license registered somewhere for a marriage to be considered legal. That wouldn't stop the couple from claiming to be husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife.

And that is the difference. Anyone can claim to be married, anyone ceremony or not.
 
And that is the difference. Anyone can claim to be married, anyone ceremony or not.

Exactly, you just need the right set of circumstances before the state will officially endorse it and grant you all the benefits which that married status brings. Which is really the cruz of the issue here, same-sex couples are being denied those benefits.
 
No they will not. They are authorized by the state as officers appointed to do an official marriage ceremony. They are bound by the law.



Marriage Laws
•In the United States, all states require a marriage license. Requirements such as age, waiting period and blood testing vary from state to state, but if you do not obtain this license prior to your wedding, the marriage will not be legal.
- Can You Have a Wedding Without Obtaining a Marriage License? | eHow.com

Look, I understand that the marriage wouldn't be considered "legal", but that's not the point. The couple could still legally go through a marriage ceremony, have a wedding, without a license. No one could get into any legal trouble for doing so. Now, like I said earlier, if you can actually show me a state that has a law against a ceremony without a license, then I'll accept the exception, but I highly doubt there is any state in the US that would try to make it punishable to have a wedding ceremony (with either fines and/or jail time). And if such a case did come up, I think it would get struck down eventually, even if it had to go to the SCOTUS. The state cannot legally prevent people from performing private ceremonies that don't harm anyone or anything.

Now, if the couple tried to claim on legal forms that they are married, then the state/federal government could prosecute them. Now there are some exceptions even to this. A few states still will recognize certain situations as married without a license. I found out that in New York, you don't technically need a license. A few states have common-law marriage laws. But generally speaking, common law marriages only apply to the state. It's not federally legal.

N.Y. Validates License-less Religious Marriages But Not N.J., Unless…
 
And that is the difference. Anyone can claim to be married, anyone ceremony or not.

Exactly. That's what we have been trying to explain. There are two forms of marriage, civil and religious/private. Civil marriage is all about the license and making your marriage legally recognized by the state. Religious or private marriage is presenting yourself as a committed couple, claiming to be husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife in everything you do. Most religious/private marriages are also civil marriages, and most civil marriages are also religious/private marriages, but neither needs the other to actually exist. The only time that there is truly a problem is when someone who hasn't or isn't allowed to have a civil marriage tries to claim their status as married on legal forms or for legal matters because they recognize themselves as married because of their religious/private marriage.

As I've mentioned earlier, there are even some cases where two people are viewed as religiously/privately married, by their church or family, but don't consider themselves to actually be married, and are not married civilly.

The bottom line is that civil marriage should be completely secular. Religious beliefs should have no say in who can be involved in a civil marriage. Now, the government can limit civil marriages, but those limitations should be fair. The best thing the government could do is to explain exactly why it endorses civil marriages, and make the civil marriage laws fit with that reasoning. As the marriage laws are right now, they discriminate against homosexual couples without a good reason why.
 
Last edited:
Its good that nearly 60% are against homosexual marriage.

As the marriage laws are right now, they discriminate against homosexual couples without a good reason why.
The "reason" is your opinion NOT fact.
Admittedly, I am on the bubble, but, we must have respect for our existing religion as well as for the institution of marriage.
 
Its good that nearly 60% are against homosexual marriage.


The "reason" is your opinion NOT fact.
Admittedly, I am on the bubble, but, we must have respect for our existing religion as well as for the institution of marriage.

The government has never actually given a reason for why they support any marriage. And DOMA is the only thing the government has put out that attempts to explain its discrimination against gays, but that reasoning is flawed in that it is essentially "because marriage has always been between a man and a woman", which isn't true and doesn't take into account all the other ways that marriage has changed throughout time, even in our own country.

Religion has no place in our government's endorsement of marriage. We have separation of church and state. Our government does benefit from endorsing marriages, and that should be the focus of the government when it decides who can and cannot get married legally, how marriages benefit our country/society, not what marriage has been or how any religion feels about marriage. Once they establish those benefits of marriage to our society and make marriage laws that are completely fair and in line with those benefits, then civil marriage itself should be fair.
 
Its good that nearly 60% are against homosexual marriage.

BTW, don't get too excited. It has already been established that since the poll results weren't made public, that someone has been stacking the deck on the side of against gay marriage. A mod put out earlier in this thread, that the results are definitely the opposite of what the poll shows, if you don't count "guest" votes.
 
Its good that nearly 60% are against homosexual marriage.


The "reason" is your opinion NOT fact.
Admittedly, I am on the bubble, but, we must have respect for our existing religion as well as for the institution of marriage.

I will ask again because no one answered me last time: What is the legitimate state interest in prohibiting same-sex civil marriages from being legal? What benefit to the state does the ban support? It certainly doesn't benefit society to prohibit same-sex marriage because organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the National Association for Social Workers stated to the California Supreme Court (this is straight off of Wikipedia lol):

Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives. Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships. The institution of marriage affords individuals a variety of benefits that have a favorable impact on their physical and psychological well-being. A large number of children are currently being raised by lesbians and gay men, both in same-sex couples and as single parents. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. State policies that bar same-sex couples from marrying are based solely on sexual orientation. As such, they are both a consequence of the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, and a structural manifestation of that stigma. By allowing same-sex couples to marry, the Court would end the antigay stigma imposed by the State of California through its ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples. In addition, allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. In addition, if their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families. There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.

So if you claim it's not discrimination, then what is the "reason"? With scientific evidence that supports legalizing same-sex marriage to the detriment of no one (based on scientific evidence) and to the benefit of the entire gay/lesbian community, I honestly don't see how this is a matter of opinion at all. The above is factual information that there is no good reason to distinguish between legal rights for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom